La véritable histoire de Laura Ingalls

Okay, this movie was absolutely horrible. I am a very loyal Laura Ingalls Wilder fan and I have read biographies about her and believe me almost NONE of this was factual. First off, Laura Ingalls Wilder was an obvious brunette and it was pointed out in almost every book. Even though she did not like some of the customs of ladies, she still followed those customs. Like, she even put her hair up! Plus, she was no where near ditzy. She was smart and sincere and very honest. Honestly, if I was going to make a movie based on this wonderful woman's life, I would be as loyal to it as possible! Another thing, Laura and Almanzo lost their second child about a few weeks after he was born, he was not stillborn. Furthermore, she did not have a passion for writing until she was much older. And the girls who played Laura's sisters were underplayed and her parents were not loveable like they were in the book. Laura did not truly love Almanzo Wilder until they became engaged actually. She liked him and admired him but she did not actually love him until they were engaged. Obviously the makers of this movie took some creative liberties with this movie, and I did not like them. Don't waste your time seeing this movie.

Saying this movie is more true than the TV series is like saying a tiger is a better pet than a lion. Neither of them make good pets, regardless.

I enjoyed the fact that some of the details were not overlooked. Pa (well played by Richard Thomas) had a beard and played the violin. However, I was disappointed in the script overall.

One of my favorite parts of the Little House series is the confrontation between Laura and her future sister-in-law, Eliza Jane Wilder. I also disliked the way Laura was forced into teaching by her father. This is how Laura told the story in any of her books. Another irritating point, Almanzo Wilder had a matched pair of Morgans. Skip and Barnum came later. Laura did not nearly break her engagement because she wanted to travel.

Like many movies these days, The Powers That Be were determined to re-write history and place feminists in roles. I recall nothing in the book that has Caroline Ingalls going off on Charles about wanting to move further west. I recall nothing about Laura Ingalls wanting to consumate her marriage in an abandoned homesite out in the open. This film couldn't even keep Laura in a sun bonnet, placing her instead in a beat up man's hat that looked like something Indiana Jones threw out.

I wouldn't have this big of a problem with the movie if it did not claim to be the "true" story. I had no problem with the flights of fancy the TV show took because it only claimed to be based on the life and works of Laura Ingalls. But if you claim it is the "true" story, then make it the true story. Or don't do it.

Yes, there was quite a bit of sensational melodrama here that probably wasn't the least bit true-to-life. (I've never actually read the Little House books, though I have read several biographies of Laura, but I don't need their biggest fan to tell me Laura never described her first "experience" with Almanzo probably at all, much less like this.) Merideth Monroe was pretty good as Laura, height and hair color aside, but often shallow, flat and annoyingly modern. But there was more stuff here, and most of it was good. Very nice photography of the Dakota prarie, good performances from Richard Thomas and Lindsay Crouse as Pa and Ma, and a real sense, thanks to the script, visuals and direction, of how hard prarie life was in the 1880s. Both like and unlike the usual Sunday-night TV-movie fare, and not really that bad. But you probably should read a good biography of the real Laura and the books themselves, just in case.

When I saw the previews for this movie, I thought "Good they are making a movie about one of the greatest authors." When I watched it I thought "True? Which part is true?"

First off the girl looked nothing like Laura. She was blonde and reminded me of Mary. I mean, she would have done well for married Laura, but they had her portraying Laura when she was 14 years old. Not many people in the mid-twenties can do that. And she wasn't feisty like Laura. Melissa Gilbert did a terrific job as Laura.

And where was the Nellie character? I mean, they put in some girl named Patsy. And you hardly even knew Laura had sisters. I mean in the TV series they had Laura interacting with her sisters, but in this movie it was like that they didn't matter.

And now, I hear, they are making another one. Beyond the Prairie: The True Story of Laura Ingalls Wilder 2.

If they do, I hope it's better than the first one. And more truthful.

So much more could have been done with this wonderful literary series. Instead, at least four books were hastily sped through, leaving a dizzying series of events, most of which were so condensed and convoluted in this film to be unrecognizable to any reader of the books. The prairie settings were very realistic and true to life, some of the casting was good (particularly Lindsay Crouse and Richard Thomas and Ma and Pa) but I was not impressed by Meridith Monroe's portrayal of Laura. Much attention was given to setting and costuming, but Monroe's flowing 90's hair and boisterous mannerisms left me cold. The movie does improve a bit towards the end, but for the first hour I was wondering where in the world it was going. Perhaps if this were produced instead as a miniseries, it would have had more impact. For those only familiar with the totally fictional "Little House" TV series it will give some insight to her life that was completely passed over; for others who want to know the real story of Laura, her books, and all the wonderful autobiographical material out there, will serve you much better than this.